GETTING AN APOLOGY PRINTED

In a more serious situation, it will be a good plan to begin by having a quick word with a lawyer, preferably one with experience in this area. Fax or email a copy of the offending piece, and ask for an initial opinion. In law, is this libellous? Defamatory? Damaging? Do you, or could you, have a reasonable case if it came to court?

Then, even if your brief reckons it’s a borderline case, contact the editor. The alleged damaging statement, or whatever, has been aired in public so your objective will be the publication of a retraction and an unqualified apology. Ideally this should:

• appear in the next issue of the publication
• be printed on the same page as the offending item
• occupy the same amount of space on the page.

You should also ask for the right to agree the wording of the retraction in advance.

You will now almost certainly encounter stout resistance, because most editors have a deep-seated aversion to publishing apologies. Well, let’s face it – would you like to have to tell all your loyal readers that your magazine sometimes gets it badly wrong? So the editor’s first reaction may be to try to dismiss the idea. ‘Oh come on, a retraction’s going a bit far, surely it wasn’t as bad as all that? I can’t see there’s really anything to apologise for,’ and so on. You then counter this by detailing, politely but formally, the actual damage that the magazine’s action has caused, or could cause, you or your organisation. If you can back this with hard facts, a favourable legal opinion and a reasonable (but firm) attitude, you may get the editor – albeit reluctantly! – to change his mind.

Here’s an actual example of a serious nasty. Naturally we’ve made it suitably anonymous!

Demanding an apology – an example

Once upon a time, there was a computer systems manufacturer who secured a large and very valuable order from a prominent building society. The manufacturer’s PR agency distributed (with the building society’s full approval and cooperation) a press release announcing the order, complete with a suitably captioned pic showing the society’s general manager sitting at a desk signing the contract whilst surrounded by various executives from both organisations – a very common practice. Good bona fide order story, good take-up by most of the trade press.

However, one magazine decided to play it differently. It didn’t use the order story, but it did use the pic of the signing ceremony (without caption or acknowledgement) as part of a ‘fun’ competition inviting readers to guess what the man sitting at the desk was saying. Unfortunately the magazine also described him as ‘the character looking like a rather shady second-hand car salesman’, or words to that effect.

The building society’s general manager was a well-known and respected figure in the financial world. Incandescent with rage, he issued an ultimatum. He would cancel the entire order unless the magazine published a full and unreserved apology – and he left it up to the computer manufacturer to arrange it. Pretty unfair on the manufacturer, you might think – but who argues with a customer armed with a million quid or so?

Within hours the manufacturer’s PR agency had consulted a lawyer, got a positive opinion, contacted the editor concerned, and firmly insisted on the necessary apology. The editor’s initial reaction was to refuse, on the grounds that the agency had sent him the pic without any stipulations about how it should be used, and anyway, it was only a bit of fun, wasn’t it? The agency pointed out that (a) the pic was captioned and attached to the press release, so it was clearly provided as an integral part of the order story – hence the magazine had used it for a purpose for which it was never intended; (b) the magazine’s unfortunate description of the very respectable general manager had brought him into ridicule and contempt; and (c) the computer manufacturer would hold the publishers and the editor fully responsible for the loss of profit that would result if the very large order were cancelled. It was made clear that a claim would be pursued through the courts if no apology were forthcoming.

The result was a retraction and apology in the magazine’s next issue, with wording agreed in advance by the building society’s general manager. It appeared on the same page as the offending ‘competition’ had done, and took up the same amount of space. The order was saved, and the PR agency removed the offending magazine from its distribution list for future releases – just in case.

As Sir Winston Churchill once said: ‘To jaw-jaw is better than to war-war’!